Brett Kavanaugh

[Gelston]

And finally, removing this particular situation from the board- you are strongly implying that no woman who has been the victim of sexual assault by a powerful man should come forward unless they've got video evidence (which, spoiler alert- they almost never do). That's extremely dangerous territory and an incredibly damaging message to send to victims (and a very empowering one to send to predators)

No I'm not. I didn't say she was lying anywhere either. I'm also not saying she is telling the truth.

[Tgo01]

1) She brought the situation up 6 years ago- prior to both of his last two confirmation hearings (The last one was in 2006 I believe?)- in a private setting with a neutral third party professional who can, at least, give an official assessment of how truthful the story felt to him. She had nothing to gain by discussing this issue in therapy, there was certainly no reason to suspect any political motive, and it was in a setting you typically consider to be 100% private- meaning you don't really intend for it to ever get out when you say it. To question her credibility on this, we would have to believe that there were some reason for her to have started some lie about Kavanaugh 6 years ago when there was no apparent point to it.

She didn't name anyone at the time. This means less than squat.

2) Making this accusation publicly will subject her to an incredible amount of harassment, require her to relive trauma, and could have serious consequences for her economic and physical safety. So she would have to have an incredibly strong reason to do it. Given she's gainfully employed as a Professor and appears to have no history of criminal activity or false accusations (at least that have been brought up)- there is both a lot for her to lose and not a lot of reason to question her credibility.

So you're saying in the era of #MeToo and "Fuck Trump at any cost" it lends credibility to her arguments to come public with this? You being for real right now?

3) I behooves me to remind you that Kavanaugh has already demonstrated a propensity to give false or (at best) highly misleading testimony under oath in confirmation hearings. In a He Said/She Said- he's actually in the weaker position here. His history with Congressional testimony means that there IS reason to doubt his credibility when he denies the accusations.

He's a federal judge who up until now (because of the Democrats in congress) has been a highly respected judge and HIS credibility is weaker? Fuck's sake.

4) Kavanaugh has a lot to gain by lying about the situation and a lot to lose by being honest.

Jesus Christ, you're already of the opinion that he's lying and you have the audacity to act like this is an impartial breakdown of the facts.

I'll also point out that just because it's currently a bit of a he said/she said situation doesn't mean that there isn't any other evidence out there (there were at least two other people who were there at the house, for example). That's the point of an investigation.

What other fucking evidence could possibly come to light now? She has already said there was only one other person in the room and from what I have heard the other person said it never happened. What else is there to investigate? Come on, answer a damn hard question for once.

[Methais]

I didn't say she was lying anywhere either.

Good man.

I'm also not saying she is telling the truth.

WTF? Sexist.

Reported, doxxed, IP subpoenaed, and calling your boss.

[time4fun]

No I'm not. I didn't say she was lying anywhere either. I'm also not saying she is telling the truth.

It's the logical consequence of your statement. You're dismissing the value of an investigation here because it's "just" a he said/she said with no video evidence (or equivalent- obviously you meant that to represent any form of concrete evidence).

But if we dismiss the value of investigations every time that happens, then the vast majority of victims of sexual assault have no recourse.

There are very good reasons to support moving forward with some form of investigation. It's not something to cast doubt on or to question the value/legitimacy of.

I happen to agree with you that it's unlikely we'll see a lot of additional evidence under the circumstances, but that doesn't mean this isn't worthy of the attention it's getting and the action steps currently being taken.

[Gelston]

Good man.



WTF? Sexist.

Reported, doxxed, IP subpoenaed, and calling your boss.

I WORK FOR ME!

It's the logical consequence of your statement. You're dismissing the value of an investigation here because it's "just" a he said/she said with no video evidence (or equivalent- obviously you meant that to represent any form of concrete evidence).

But if we dismiss the value of investigations every time that happens, then the vast majority of victims of sexual assault have no recourse.

There are very good reasons to support moving forward with some form of investigation. It's not something to cast doubt on or to question the value/legitimacy of.

I happen to agree with you that it's unlikely we'll see a lot of additional evidence under the circumstances, but that doesn't mean this isn't worthy of the attention it's getting and the action steps currently being taken.

No where did I say this shouldn't be looked at. I actually said she should testify and make her case before the senate, which I believe they are setting up. That is the only "court" she'll really ever get because there isn't really anyway to bring any charges and the FBI kicked it down to state.

[Taernath]

4) Kavanaugh has a lot to gain by lying about the situation and a lot to lose by being honest. If we're looking at this purely from the angle of motive- he has obvious motive to lie while she does not. That's not proof of anything, but it does mean that the two testimonies are not necessarily created equally- particularly in the court of public opinion.

You're getting dangerously close to a Monty Python skit now. "Denying being a sexual predator is exactly what a sexual predator would do!"

[time4fun]

So you're okay with someone's career being ruined based on decades old allegations with no supporting evidence at all of said crime ever happening? Just keep cycling through these candidates until the Democrats get one they like whereupon they will make sure any possible accusations never see the light of day or if they do they will downplay them? You really are the biggest piece of shit I have ever had this much interaction with, and that's amazing because I've known some horrible people.

No one forced Kavanaugh to lie under oath during his last confirmation hearing. He shouldn't be removed from the process just because there was an accusation, but in a situation like this where it's likely to come down to the credibility of her testimony vs his- he's already set himself up to be the less credible of the two. And, yes, for that reason he should be removed and replaced.

Also please stop saying there's no supporting evidence. That is categorically false. There is supporting evidence. You may not like it, but it exists.

[Tgo01]

You're getting dangerously close to a Monty Python skit now. "Denying being a sexual predator is exactly what a sexual predator would do!"

That line of hers is a real head scratcher.

People have gone to jail before for making up crimes and falsely accusing people. People's lives have been ruined by spending years in jail based on false accusations. And here she is saying this woman has nothing to gain from lying so clearly that points to her telling the truth.

[Tgo01]

No one forced Kavanaugh to lie under oath during his last confirmation hearing. He shouldn't be removed from the process just because there was an accusation, but in a situation like this where it's likely to come down to the credibility of her testimony vs his- he's already set himself up to be the less credible of the two. And, yes, for that reason he should be removed and replaced.

You're hilarious. "This woman that no one knew of until about 36 hours ago has NEVER LIED to our knowledge."

Also please stop saying there's no supporting evidence. That is categorically false. There is supporting evidence. You may not like it, but it exists.

What is the supporting evidence? I gotta hear this shit.

[Gelston]

You're hilarious. "This woman that no one knew of until about 36 hours ago has NEVER LIED to our knowledge."



What is the supporting evidence? I gotta hear this shit.

She claims that the notes from her psychologist where she spoke about it is supporting evidence. The source is still her own words though.